|
PN Secretary General says withdrawing from Marsa and Zejtun was not intended to avoid a major defeat, but he refuses to elaborate
The Nationalist Party Secretary General has been getting flak from his own party activists since the news of the “intelligent” decision to withdraw candidates from Marsa and Zejtun hit the headlines, and the pressure on him is quite evident.
The dissent provoked an outburst of criticism that is quite a novelty for a party that is not used to hanging its dirty linen in public.
It is only understandable, therefore, that Saliba does not really appreciate even more questions about the decision. So far he has consistently said that the withdrawal had nothing to do with minimising votes against the PN. So what was it about then?
“You and MaltaToday have been putting this question for ages; to the prime minister, to me and I don’t know to whom else, and you always had the same reply,” Saliba says, giving away clear signs of irritation. “It’s a strategic decision that has nothing to do with numbers, because you can assess every locality on its own, by seeing the percentages gained or lost over the last election. Even if you remove Zejtun and Marsa you can still talk about the overall figures of three years ago – the PN has 48.1 per cent while the MLP has 48.5 per cent.”
So why was the decision taken?
“You want to know too much,” Saliba replies. “You keep asking me the same question and our reply is that it was a strategic decision. I can’t tell you the reason behind it because it would be no strategy at all.”
Even his party activists will have to wait for a justification. “They have every right to disagree, to criticise our decision, but at the end of the day I think it would be a mistake for the PN to say why it took this decision. When the time is right we will explain this – one way or another - to the executive committee.”
The decision becomes even more enigmatic when one considers what two of the candidates who had their nominations withdrawn told MaltaToday they withdrew because of “personal reasons”, while Saliba insists it was a “strategic decision”. I tell him someone must be confusing things.
“I think nobody is confusing anything,” he replies. “The candidates had every right to say why they withdrew their nominations.”
Yes but the explanations do not tally.
“It’s no problem then, take their word that they withdrew for personal reasons. Actually I think they are acting in a very correct manner. They are frankly telling you this is the party’s business, not MaltaToday’s, perhaps not in so many words.”
Saliba has always said local elections remain local elections, not a national vote for government. Then why all this fear of Zejtun and Marsa? Why not just let the people of Zejtun and Marsa vote against the PN if they wish so?
“What is of concern to me is that you’re interviewing me about local elections and you haven’t asked me about anything except Zejtun and Marsa.”
Come on Joe, I tell him, we’ve just started the interview.
“Your first three questions were about Zejtun and Marsa and I will keep giving you the same answer: it’s a strategic decision which I won’t explain to you.”
Right. How will he interpret the results?
“As we always did, that is when we lost we always admitted defeat. We’re the only party in Malta to admit defeat whenever we lose.”
Does that mean he is anticipating a defeat?
“It depends on what you mean by defeat. In local councils you don’t have wins and defeats, you have that in general elections.”
Perhaps anything less than 48.1 per cent?
“The reality is that the PN is halfway through this legislature; it’s a legislature in which the party is taking hard decisions that are not giving immediate results but which will materialise later on, nearer the general election. Actually contrary to what was reported in The Times today (an unscientific internet poll giving the lead to the PN), my answer is crystal-clear: it is not the time for a party in government to be the most popular party.”
The PN has now opted to go for a very low-key campaign, something for which Saliba - this time - decides to give a clear explanation.
“There are several reasons for this. We have to distinguish between this legislature and the previous one. In the previous one Malta went through a five-year electoral campaign – not just on a local level because Labour started contesting as well – but also because there was the major issue of EU membership. Our decision right now was, do we have to keep running aggressive electoral campaigns every year even for local elections? Or should we keep the campaign more on a local level? We opted for the second decision. Also, the prime minister does not have as much time on his hands as the Opposition leader. And I don’t believe our country should be in a campaign mode for five years running.”
The fact that the party won’t be contesting two elections may actually put off Nationalist voters from voting in other localities although Saliba insists this shouldn’t be the case.
“No no, one should still vote… they shouldn’t concern themselves… we shouldn’t have a lower voter turnout. I repeat, I’m not worried… I was expecting a bad reaction from some people to that decision, but they should still vote because they are voting on a local level. You’re all the time trying to shift the argument… this is a local election not a government test.”
I tell him some of the Nationalists themselves are putting forward the argument.
“This is not a vote for the party but for your candidates on a local level… you have every right to keep saying so, and you have every right to insist with me to say so, but definitely you can’t interpret me as saying so. You say the people are saying so, I have no recording of anyone telling you so, I just have your word and I have no reason to take your word on this.”
Is he worried about the fact that he has to sit for another election in April to be confirmed Secretary General?
“No actually I’m very proud that I was the Secretary General who decided and changed the party regulations … I did that, I changed the election of Secretary General from January to April. I’m proud to have introduced this system. And you should have known this, because you didn’t say that in your question.”
Does he think he will be contested?
“I have no idea and I’m not even thinking of that election. What interests me now is these local elections.”
No concerns that his job may be on the line?
“My position is subject to an election, it’s not something I decide, and I’m not tied to it forever, you don’t have to worry about that.”
If the party fares badly now, will he keep saying it was an intelligent decision?
“I will keep saying it was an intelligent strategy that failed. It happens in every campaign that you have strategies that fail and others that are a success.”
Given that he is the most vociferous defender of this decision then he must take responsibility for it.
“You’re putting responsibility on me, and I really wish you to quote me precisely on everything I tell you. I wasn’t the only man behind the strategy. You know well enough there’s a strategy group, so why do you speak only about me?”
I have no idea who’s in the strategy group.
“It doesn’t matter, but you know there’s a group of people.”
I take his word for it.
“So you can’t hold only me responsible. I take responsibility, I have no problem with that, I just want you to realise what a difference the way you word your questions makes.”
It would help if we knew who’s in this group.
“Do you think a strategy group should be made public?
As a journalist I will always argue that everything should be made public, but he disagrees.
“I don’t understand your position,” he says.
Cool. That means both of us can’t understand each other.
Joe Saliba was talking
to Karl Schembri
|
